Hi Javed,
I think you’re getting something wrong. Policies aren’t there so APNIC can verify “everything” to “every” member. This will be impossible. Policies are there so everybody know the rules, and try their best to avoid breaking them. Policies are there to avoid bad-intentions from bad-Internet actors, in order to protect the majority (the good ones). If we only accept policies when they can be verified, then we will have an empty policy book :-) If APNIC does a verification, for whatever reason (any suspicius, a claim from another member, etc.), and a rule is broken, APNIC should take measures if the member doesn’t correct it. In some cases those measures may mean member closure, resource recovery, etc. This is a completely different discussion which has policy and service agreement implications. Please, note before continue reading that this only affects end-user direct assignments by APNIC or the NIRs. Not clarifiying this caused some confusion in the discussion of the last meeting. So if you’re an ISP (I’m not sure if that’s your case), this proposal doesn’t affect you. It only affect you, if you are getting a direct assignment from APNIC or any of the NIRs. The fact here is that if, for example, an university, which got a direct assignment from APNIC, is providing the students public addresses (IPv4) or global addresses (IPv6), it is against the policy. In the case of IPv4, the solution is easy, use NAT and private addresses (but not all the universities do that). However in IPv6 this is not the solution, we don’t have NAT. I can put many other similar examples (remember again, this is only the case when the addresses are directly assigned to the end-user by APNIC or the NIR, not by an ISP): a point to point link from the university to another network, an employee getting addresses from a company, thir party companies offering services to that company or university, a municipality offering WiFi to citizens, etc. The proposal solves both cases, the IPv4 and the IPv6 one. Note that this has been already corrected in all the other RIRs (ARIN, AFRINIC, LACNIC and RIPE). All them had the same problem in their policy text. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/19 16:01, "Javed Khan" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkha...@outlook.com> escribió: I do not support this proposal. Intention is good but no one is really concerned nor can verify this in practice. I think the current policy text is good. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2019 10:33 PM To: Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 1. Problem Statement -------------------- Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct assignments from APNIC, or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and assignment for exclusive use within its infrastructure. Consequently this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations. When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did not consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even amplified in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs. In IPv4, typically, this is not a problem if NAT is being used, because the assigned addresses are only for the WAN link, which is part of the infrastructure or interconnection. In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes (/64) is increasingly common. Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots hotspots (when is not an ISP, for example, associations or community networks), or the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and many other similar cases. One more case is when an end-user contracts a third-party to do some services in their own network and they need to deploy their own devices, even servers, network equipment, etc. For example, security surveillance services may require that the contractor provides their own cameras, recording system, even their own firewall and/or router for a dedicated VPN, etc. Of course, in many cases, this surveillance system may need to use the addressing space of the end-user. Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64). 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Section 2.2.3. (Definitions/Assigned Address Space), explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assigned ... may not be sub-assigned”. It also clarifies that the usage of sub-assignments in ISPs, data centers and similar cases is not allowed, according to the existing practices of APNIC. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Current Text 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. New text: 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, as well as for interconnection purposes. The assigned address space must only be used by the original recipient of the assignment, as well as for third party devices provided they are operating within said infrastructure. Therefore, sub-assignments to third parties outside said infrastructure (for example using sub-assignments for ISP customers), and providing addressing space to third parties in data-centers (or similar cases), are not allowed. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real situation in the market. Disadvantages: None foreseen. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None. 7. References ------------- Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
